The atheists thing again

[LongHaul]

Hoping the other come here and let the other thread get back to it's original direction, I'd like to reply to Lisabob. Does no need to change the actual program include the Oath and Law? While explaining in his own words the meaning of the Oath and Law how would an atheist explain his Duty to God? "There isn't one so I don't have any, but I will take an oath on my honor to do it?" We would have to change that part of the program which has never changed since day 1.

LongHaul

[packsaddle]

I'll take a crack at the question, assuming I understand it correctly. How would an atheist be able to meet the 'duty to God' part of the oath?

The problem is contained in the determination of who judges the oath as having been met. If we are left to make this as a personal judgment that is one thing. But if each of us is to be judged by someone else that is quite another, and I think this is the distinction that has driven so much discussion in these threads. If someone is to receive external judgement, who is it that is qualified to cast those stones?

 

But if the judgement is strictly personal that is easy.

Think of it in terms of math. If the duty is the denominator and the personal belief system is the numerator, then some of us who are deeply religious will have a large fraction to contend with in meeting the oath. It will be a personal expectation that we each attach to our own life.

For those of us who are 'so-so' religious, the fraction is not as large and we would be able to judge ourselves as having met the oath with less religious involvement in our lives.

An atheist would have a numerator of zero. The atheist would have no personal duty to any god. And therefore, regardless of what the denominator says, the quotient would always be zero. He would have to do nothing to meet his personal duty and the oath because he has no personal duty to any god. The only way a problem occurs is IF the person with a large fraction attempts to cast those stones and become the external judge. As long as matters of faith remain deeply personal and not subject to BSA 'thought police', this should not be the problem it has been over recent years.

BSA doesn't really have to do anything to avoid the problem. What they have to do is NOT to stick their noses into personal belief systems. That takes no effort whatsoever.

[Hunt]

Packsaddle, by your logic a boy who is an anarchist could also feel he satisfied the oath, because he believes he has no duty to his country. One of Ayn Rand's followers might feel that he has no obligation to help other people, and thus he could freely swear that he has met his obligation to do so.

 

While I'm not advocating what I'm about to say, the way to drop the DRP while retaining the Oath and Law without changes would be to say that when the Oath says "God," that includes non-theistic ethical systems that take the place of religious-based ethics in the life of the individual.

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, I sometimes amuse myself - imagining Ayn Rand's childhood in a Presbyterian environment. I think many of my elementary school teachers were followers of hers.

I'm OK with your second suggestion. In fact, that is effectively what is happening anyway now.

[Trevorum]

LongHaul,

 

Remember that BSA is "strictly non-sectarian". This means that various members are free to believe in different gods. This means that not everyone believes in your god. The gods of a Hindu scout are not the same as those of a pagan Scout and are different from that of a Jewish Scout. While the God of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Old Testament demands obedience from humans, not all gods demand obedience. Some gods are vastly indifferent to human affairs. In these cases, one's "Duty to God" is a meaningless phrase, as packsaddle has pointed out.

 

Dropping the DRP as a condition of national membership would not require changing the Oath or Law or any aspect of the current program. Scouts belonging to traditional faiths would continue interpreting "Duty to God" as before; scouts in non-traditional faiths would do the same. Scouts with no faith could choose to join (and be exposed to Scouting's religious elements - like Scout's Own services on Sunday campouts, invocations, etc.) or not join.

 

I personally know many atheists. Without exception these are fine folks, imvolved in the community, good citizens, moral and trustworthy. They simply reject supernaturalism and ancient mythology. Their kids are involved in soccer, band, little league, girl scouts, FFF, and other groups, but not Scouting. And I think that's a shame. Scouting has so much to offer ALL kids. We should reach out to these kids instead of smugly turning our backs.

 

[LongHaul]

Trevorum,

Actually everyone who believes in any type of god(s) believes in my personal God. I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith, that experience (certainly not the church), has led me to believe that there is indeed only one God we just view that God differently. If anyone wants to discuss this let's spin a different thread and leave this one to the discussion of atheists and the Oath and Law.

In the movie Gone with the Wind Rett Buttler is asked to swear an oath upon his honor as a gentleman. He smiles and says to the effect "As a gentleman? I can swear to that" The audience is made to believe that Mr. Buttler does not consider himself a gentleman and therefore has no problem with this oath. He still has personal honor however and would not want to swear an oath upon his personal honor that he didn't intend to keep, but honor as a gentleman no problem. Is he being dishonest? Is he being deceptive? Is he being Trustworthy?

Packsaddle, my spawn till we die buddy,(that didn't read like it did when I wrote it. I hope you and everyone else will understand my reference) I didn't ask how the boy would live up to his duty to God, I asked how he would explain it like while trying to pass Tenderfoot requirement #7. I like your fraction analogy and will probably use it myself, thanks. Living with your personal views and understanding is different than living up to the expectations of others. Every requirement we have in Scouting asks us to live up to the expectation of someone else. Even if we are to take the boys word for every single thing, that degree of excellence becomes our expectation. "Can you tie a square knot?" "Yes" sign it off. I don't see this as being the level that we are at today in BSA. Swearing to do a duty that you dont feel even exists is not Trustworthy IMO. It's not living the Oath and Law in your daily life. Dropping the DRP and not changing anything else doesn't seem to me to be an acceptable fix. I think the Oath and Law as written are very good yard sticks to live a life by and don't think they should be messed with it word or in application. Alowing a boy to pull a Rett Buttler would be messing with the application IMO.

LongHaul

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[Gonzo1]

LongHaul,

The only point I ws trying make in the other thread is that BSA has a set of rules, let's follow them. If a requirement for advancemnt said "build a fire using no more than 2 matches, prepare and cook you meal" does the scout earn the sign offif he uses a box of matches., No, not even if he used 3 as 3>2. But if he used 2 and then used flint and steel, i'd sign it off, used 2 matches and improvised with flint and steel (it doesn't say he couldn't).

 

If a requirement for joining BSA is be a boy 11 years old, but a 9 year old wanted to join, well, we both know you'd send him to cubs.

 

Look at it this way. If a club existed for only tall people, whose requirements for membership included being 6 feet tall or taller, be unmarried and have black hair. Could short brown haired people join? They couldn't because they dn't meet the requirements. But what if shorty learned of their adventures to gaming casino's dance halls, parties and camping and beach trips, etc and really wanted to join, short shorty force the Tall Group to freely accept shorty? I don't thin so, shorty better start his own group for short people.

 

I feel this is how it is with BSA. There are requirement for joining, boys actually earn a patch for it, Scout Badge. BSA really doesn't care which God or Gods you believe in, just believe in God.

 

Remember, we take an oath to do our duty to God, not some vast unknown emptiness.

[packsaddle]

Unless the vast unknown emptiness IS that god for some person - and unless BSA is ready to make a very specific definition of what BSA means by "God", the judgment should be left to the individual holding the belief. BSA's desire not to provide such specificity is obvious.

[John-in-KC]

My opinion:

 

The day after we drop the DRP is the day The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (as a corporate church body) drops Scouting as its male youth program.

 

LDS church will direct its units to de-charter so fast it will make National's head swim.

 

If:

- you cannot ascribe any of the glory and majesty of this earth, the skies and creation to any god (small g),

- you cannot ascribe any of the mystery of this life to any god (small g),

- you as an adult hold a family value that no god or gods (again small g) exist.

Then:

The Boy Scouts of America is not for you or your child.

 

It really is that simple.

[Trevorum]

John,

yeah, I think most of us agree that the LDS threat is a big reason why the DRP remains a condition of national membership, despite all of the legal hassles for BSA, bad press, and loss of school and governmental chartering partners. Few would use the term "blackmail", but it certainly appears to be an implied threat by LDS. But if that happened, would it be so bad? All those LDS fellows would still be scouting, just not in the BSA brand. I don't think that LDS would make drastic changes in the program - after all it's a proven program - maybe they'd tinker with the emblems and uniform, a new oath, rename the ranks, that sort of thing. But they'd still be scouts - just LDS scouts. ("A rose by any other name ..."). BSA membership would drop of course, but not much would be different for active units and for scouts. We'd still go camping, sell popcorn, do service projects, and have Courts of Honor. Maybe we'd have fewer executives. And, maybe those other kids I mentioned, the ones who can't join today because of their family's beliefs, maybe some of those kids would join Scouting and get to join in Baden Powell's great adventure.

 

I interpret your final logic statement to mean that Scouts need a sense of awe and reverence for the numinous. I agree.

[Lisabob]

First off, I apologize for being complicit in the temporary hijacking of the other thread. I was going to apologize over there, except then I'd still be hijacking, wouldn't I.

 

Here is what the BSA has to say about the purposes of scouting:

 

"The Boy Scouts of America was incorporated to provide a program for community organizations that offers effective character, citizenship, and personal fitness training for youth.

 

Specifically, the BSA endeavors to develop American citizens who are physically, mentally, and emotionally fit; have a high degree of self-reliance as evidenced in such qualities as initiative, courage, and resourcefulness; have personal values based on religious concepts; have the desire and skills to help others; understand the principles of the American social, economic, and governmental systems; are knowledgeable about and take pride in their American heritage and understand our nation's role in the world; have a keen respect for the basic rights of all people; and are prepared to participate in and give leadership to American society."

 

Source: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-503.html

 

Reading the above, what strikes me is that religious belief plays almost no role in the purposes of scouting, as defined by the BSA itself. There is really no reason that a boy couldn't benefit from ALL of the above goals no matter what the status of his personal religious belief - or lack thereof. The one phrase above that mentions religion is quite vague and subject to interpretation, so let me ask this: what values come to mind for you when you read that little bit about "have personal values based on religious concepts?"

 

Which personal values, and what are "religious concepts" anyway?

 

 

 

 

[gwd-scouter]

Lisabob askes about "Which personal values, and what are "religious concepts" anyway?"

 

OK, let's say the "religious concepts" mean those set down in the form of the Ten Commandments. Seems that most of the folks on the forum that defend the DRP are believers in that document.

 

So, MUST one believe in God in order to feel that the laws set forth in the Ten Commandments are worth living by? I don't think so. Other than those about not putting other Gods before Me and remembering the Sabbath and keeping it Holy, what parts of that document cannot be believed and lived by people without a proscribed religious conviction?

(This message has been edited by gwd-scouter)

[packsaddle]

Gwd, there have been several very nice scholarly explanations for the common set of values or moral codes that we seem to share, regardless of religious belief (killing for no reason, for example, is almost universally considered wrong). Ultimately they attribute this convergence to some aspect of human nature and religion is merely erected to account for it (sorry, this really didn't do justice to their arguments, I admit).

I actually disagree. Human nature only needs one characteristic to achieve all those things and it is one of the points of the Scout Law - Thrifty.

To answer their arguments I have created a religion with one member (me), "The First Church of Moral Thermodynamics". Don't try to google it, you won't find it out there unless someone plagiarized my idea.

Nearly all of the moral code on which most of us agree can be derived simply by applying a single assumption to thermodynamic laws. That single assumption is: that greater efficiency has greater value than lesser efficiency.

It is this innate sense that every single one of us uses to make purchase decisions, decisions of where to cross the street, and whether or not to admit to having spilled a cup of coffee...and, of course, the really important decisions as well. That's probably enough for now. I've shared this in the past but it might have been before your time in these threads.

 

LongHaul, I have to go back to one fine point regarding life, death, the meaning of everything, and spawning...and remind you that having recognized that death, like taxes, is inevitable, spawning as much as possible just makes good sense. Moral thermodynamic sense, that is.

[LongHaul]

Packsaddle my comrade in spawning appreciation I hadnt noticed that I had forgotten that, I thank you for bringing me back to the path as I love it (spawning) so. As a youth I searched and spawned, casting my bread upon many waters, but realized that for me spawning was best enjoyed when done repeatedly with the same woman. Maybe that is where the whole there is only one thing was seeded. Who or What or How ever this whole life thing got started I really like the way the spawning thing got set up.

LongHaul

 

[Hunt]

"Unless the vast unknown emptiness IS that god for some person - and unless BSA is ready to make a very specific definition of what BSA means by "God", the judgment should be left to the individual holding the belief. BSA's desire not to provide such specificity is obvious."

 

I think this makes BSA's virtue into a vice--that is, you are essentially criticizing BSA for its non-sectiarian position. BSA's only limitation, essentially, is that there must be some supernatural element in order for something to be a "religion."

 

I think that another theme that runs through this discussion is that the most important element of a religion is the moral code it provides to its followers. BSA's statement that only those observing their duty to God can be the best kind of citizens seems to buy into that theory, as does Packsaddle's idea that his Church is as good as any religion because he can derive a moral code from it. For me, however, this is entirely the wrong way to look at religion. Religion is not important because it tells people how to behave, but because it reflects our relationship to a higher reality. I think this is more difficult to express in a non-sectarian way--but this is the factor that atheists do not share with religious people, no matter how upright and moral they may be in their actions. In other words, to my mind, the "supernaturalism and ancient mythology" is really what religion is all about, not the moral code it provides. Where BSA should be in all this, of course, is a much more difficult question.